tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 8, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PDT
i came here when i was 3 years old and i consider myself a native. families are being torn a part. kids won't have their families anymore and i want to reach out to everyone for help and i support. peace out, everyone. thanks. >> hi, i live in the bay view and i actually work for a division center and i'm a case manager and a want talk about this and wasn't to bring awareness about what happened yesterday with my family which was ripped apart because my partner was taken into custody
i i.c.e. i want you to know that king is a productive citizen. he has changed completely since his release in 2001. he has been a family oriented man. a workaholic and a buddhist and we give to the community all the time and he's always been a generous donator. so i feel like we are taking somebody back that has been a moral citizen and a great son to his mom to the left of me. she was in tears yesterday. i was a wreck. last night was really rough because our son was screaming and crying for his dad and throwing tantrums and i don't want to have this continuing on.
i'm living in constant fear because i do have a really medical problem. i have a very difficult -- i have a dilemma having medical issues and i have a heart condition and i'll be a patient of dialysis soon. i'm having a lot of depression and my partner has been my rock. he has been there to help me and sees me through things and helps me emotionally and physically. i don't want to have any more separation. please stand by us and have this resolution pass. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i'm tina fey. i work for a nonprofit for 14 years helping the community. now i'm asking the community to help me because i'm supporting king who was detained by i.c.e. yesterday. it affects me at work and people
working with me. my co-worker helps us so much. i work all the time because i'm the only person who supports the family and he take her in and out of the hospital and i'm the survivor of khmer rouge because i was little and it was hard and he grew up here so he doesn't know anything about back home and we help us and we cried so hard last night and my mom prayed and said now we don't have anybody to help us because i work all the time. i cannot help my mom. he's the one who take her to the hospital when she gets sick in an emergency and he comes over and take her. that's all i got to say.
we love him to death and will fight to get him back. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi. i'm a family member of king hen and i'll be read letter on behalf of karen lewis the vice president of all sure seafood. king has been an amazing employer since september 2002. i can't believe it's been 16 years. he's a model employee. i wish over the years he could have passed his great work ethic to the employees that have come an gone over the years. besides being a great employee, he's a great son, boyfriend, co-worker and friend and amazing with his son, caden and brings him by the office and show him off. he's such a proud dad. they have such a close bond. king spends what little time he has working with his family
always telling us he is going visit his mom or siblings on saturdays. we have grown as a company over the last 34 years and it's having employees such as king that has attributed to our success. i many many times he asked for vacation check just to send money to his temple or to help others in need. he has such a kind heart for those in need. he like so many of us has made mistakes an has truly learned and paying it forward. he's a rock to his family and our company and has been there for good and bad days for his partner and he still finds time to come to work. he has worked late nights to make life better with her
illnesses he take her to work and watches him all day and goes back to work at night. he is truly turned his life around. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i work here in san francisco as a worker. i am one of the person that introduced my friends because it impacted my family and i want to make sure i do something to help my family and south east asian community. i'm glad you're able to support this. i'm grateful. it's heartbreaking for me to see this is happening so rapidly and fast. my cousin's already been deported before the whole massive deportation. he's doing well but i don't want to see any more of our community
impacted by this and many families are being separated. the cause we're fighting for to keep families together. i hope you support this. we truly appreciate it. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> yesterday they took my son and he hasn't done anything wrong since all of prison. he's been doing good things. i beg you and ask you to help my
son. that is all. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> tom gilberti. president trump is bankrupting this nation morally and financially. what a shame. lorrence getti made it to 100 years last weekend and spoke on being on convoys in worldwide war 2 and 170 ships leaving and 75 arriving. it's a war effort. it's a sacrifice. what can we do for global climate change?
in effort of that waiver super rail speed and sacramento to tracy san francisco silicon valley financed by silicon valley and financed by all of those who are still wealthy in this state. in another world war ii effort we had gm stopping car production and turning to tanks. why went we say we will not build another gasoline engine in this country? california added 3% to the global climate change in the wrong direction. it put more carbon in the air. we need to do something. change the rivers of our poison and freeways.
could it be the swarms of these little killer bees the ubers and lyfts that parade through our cities fuming and fuming so somebody can get a two-minute ride? wow. we need a change of planning. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comments? >> i wanted to say some city resolutions have been disappointingly uneven and some city projects have been brought to my mind the number of terms and ideas and concepts such as years overdue, grossly over budget. tremendous cost overruns. slippery slope. lack of oversight. closed end. not to extent. inadequate public advocacy and the concept it brings to my mind
is clientelism. you study political science i think. >> any other public comments? seeing none-like is now closed. seeing none public comment is now closed. okay. please call the committee reference calendar for items 35 through 37 out of order. >> items 35 through 37 and a supervisor may require a resolution to go to committee. mr. president, you asked me to call specifically items 35 through 37. >> through 41. >> clerk: 35 through 41 were
just called. >> supervisor peskin. would i like to sever? >> sever item 35, please. >> supervisor walton. >> supervisor peskin beat me to the punch. >> i would like it sever item 40. for the rest of the items, which would be 36, 37, 38, 39 and 41. can we take these same house, same call? okay. no objection. then these motions pass. pass unanimously. supervisor peskin. >> i will defer to the maker of the resolution that is item number 35 and would like to follow him.
>> thank you, supervisor peskin. this issue and this attack on our southeast asian community was brought to my attention by a friend of mine. i actually didn't have ann idea of what trump was up to and so one, my heart goes out to the families that have been affected by this attack on our immigrant community. also, to the entire southeast asian community. i just want to say a few things and one, i want to thank my colleagues, president yee, supervisor ronin and haney and supervisor fewer and brown and supervisor safai for co-sponsoring the resolution urging the trump administration to stop the deportation of the formerly reincarcerated
individuals. between 1975 to the early 1990s the united states accepted hundreds of thousands of southeast asians escaping war and genocide of cambodia. california is home to nearly a million southeast asians originate from cambodia, vietnam, laos and most settled in cities like san francisco, san josé, fresno, long beach and los angeles. the southeast asian immigrant were typically placed in the poorest parts of these communities with inadequate financial support and many of these individuals and their children languish in severe poverty. in particular, cambodian
he is currently detained. if he is deported he will be leaving his dying wife and a 3-year-old child. mr. hen is seeking a pardon from governor newsom and also asking the santa clara district attorney's office to join a motion to vacate his plea. either action will allow him to re-open his deportation or the and allow him to stay in the united states. the trump administration been breaking up families as a sanctuary city, we must stand up for the rights of our immigrant community and uphold our sanctuary city policy. i would also like to request to send a copy of this resolution to governor newsom and to the santa clara district attorney's office in support of pardoning mr. hen and others in a similar situation as him.
i only wish we could personally do more for the family in the southeast asian community. i wish we could reverse the order to deport. i wish i could personally remove trump from office and personally erase hate. we will stand with our immigrant community and stand against this injustice and hopefully we are successful in getting a pardon from the governor's office so we can re-open this and fight hard so mr. hen can remain in the united states as well as other southeast asian immigrants suffering from the same plight. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor yee. the reason i initially severed
this is to be added as a co-sponsor. in 1996 when this pass was and and subsequently questioned by the government of cambodia is the year i actually went to cambodia and went all around cambodia which is one of the most incredible countries in the world. a country we illegally bombed and created one of the largest humanitari humanitarian crises that happened at the hands of our nation. they are the kindest most wonderful people and when you break it, you buy it. and as a result we have many cambodian neighbors who are integral to our society and to members of mr. hen's family, my heart goes out to you. as technical matter, through the
president to supervisor walton, i think what you said is we need another further resolve this resolution should be communicated to the governor to the state of california. a former member of this body and former mayor of san francisco. we might even want to follow-up with a resolution which i think we have madame clerk, until noon tomorrow urging the governor to issue said pardon so the deportation case can be re-opened and i would be happy to work with supervisor walton to do that. i salutal -- salute all of you and you would like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> supervisor stefani. >> thank you, president yee. i'd also like to be added as a co-sponsor and so sorry to hear what your family is going through and a want to thank supervisor walton for bringing
this forward. >> i'd like to also be added as a co-sponsor. >> okay. with no objection, same house, same call. >> clerk: mr. president, i should call the item first for the record. item 35 is a resolution to respectfully urge the trump administration to stop the massive deportation of rehabilitation rehabilitationed formerly incarcerated asian national. >> same house, same call. the resolution is passed unanimously. madame clerk, call item 40. >> clerk: item 40.
supervisors convene in closed session on april 16, 2019, at 4:00 p.m., pursuant to california government code, section 54957.6, and san francisco administrative code, section 67.10(e), to confer with the mayor's office and the department of human resources regarding negotiations with labor unions representing city employees . >> we have a different house. supervisor pechgin has left tthe walton is absent. supervisor yee. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor fewer. aye. supervisor haney. aye. m mendelman, aye. supervisor ronin. there are 10 ayes. the >> the motion is approved. can i ask we rescind the vote
is the pg&e litigation. roll call, please. >> clerk: on the amendment to add -- >> i want clarification. i read out it would be april 16. is april 16 or april 9. >> clerk: april 9. >> i'm not talking about changing the day. i'm only talking about to include the 4:00 p.m. time. thank you. could i have a roll call on the amendment? >> clerk: on the amendment. [roll call]
there are 11 ayes. >> great. colleagues can we take this item as amended, same house, same call. without objection this resolution is adopted unanimously. >> clerk: closed session. >> commissioner: here we go. item 34. okay. colleagues, we are now not in closed session. >> clerk: i'll read item 34. scheduled to a motion approved march 5,2019. a motion which authorize the board of supervisors to convene a closed session for the purpose of conferring with or receiving advice regarding existing get
gation in the matters of the tax measures adopted by the voters in the june 5 municipal selection. public comment was satisfied in a previous meeting and today. >> members of the public. we ask you exit the chamber and sheriff please lock the dock behind them and >> we're back in open session. the board finds it's in the best interest that the board not disclose this closed session deliberations? motion made by fewer, and seconded by supervisor haney.
then without objection, we will not disclose our closed session deliberations. >> madame clerk, please read the in memoriams. >> today's meeting is you a adjourned on behalf of supervisor peskin for the late ray antonio, for president yee for the late calvert jang. on a motion made by president yee and on behalf of the entire board of supervisors for the late ms. madeleine co-tava. and are the made by president and the board of supervisors for the late mr. francisco shai. >> okay, that brings us to the end of the agenda. madame clerk, any further business >> that concludes our business
>> good afternoon. welcome to the the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, april fools' day, april 1st, 2019. i'm the chair of the committee, joined by the vice chair, and momentarily by committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major. you would do you any announcements? >> make sure to silence also phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cars and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be cooked submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on april 16 th. >> thank you. could you please call the first
item. >> item one is an ordinance to streamline small business permitting, and amending the health code, planning code and police code and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this is a piece of legislation sponsored by the mayor and cosponsored by supervisor brown. i believe that ben van helton on behalf of the mayor from the department of economic and workforce development is here to present. >> yes, thank you. good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of the office of economic and workforce development. we are requesting a one-week continuance on this item so we can continue to fine-tune amendments with your office. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. what i would suggest, colleagues that insofar as the week is
short and we haven't seen amendments there have been a number of e-mails from meta- and haight-ashbury and others over the last couple of days that why not we continue this to the call of the chair? if we have amendments and we are all good to go, we can schedule it, and if not, we will schedule it appropriately. i move we continued this to the call of the chair. if there is no objection, that will be the order. next item, please. >> item two is an ordinance amending the environment code to require owners of certain buildings to annually measure and disclose energy performance and to require the department of the environment to make public his but -- statistics and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this ordinance is sponsored by supervisor brown and cosponsored by myself and supervisor mar,
and is obviously a change to the environment code. here on behalf of the department of the environment is director raphael. >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you committee members for hearing this today. i want to thank supervisor brown and her leadership as a sponsor and cosponsor, supervisor peskin and mar. before you today is a very straightforward adjustment to current law, and what i want to do is give a little bit of context as to why we need to do it now, and what the benefit of this law has been, and end with where we have to go from here. >> i'm going to nitpick a few definitions which i can do as a cosponsor because the way building is defined in residential and nonresidential is defined and has -- and is a little confusing, and
specifically, and i was reading this last night, there is -- why don't you make the presentation and i will tell you where. i can see our city attorney just left, but he will be back. okay. >> wonderful. any improvements for clarity purposes, as well as policy are always welcome. i have with me today mr. reagan who is involved with ample mentation and crafting of this ordinance. if there any reasons for that, this definition is that he can shed light on, we can talk about that as well. so yes, existing buildings energy performance ordinance, catchy that it is, appoints a really challenging place in the greenhouse gas reduction for us and other cities. today, 44% of the city's emissions come from existing buildings. we have wonderful ways of looking at new construction, upping the energy code, the requirements under construction, the challenge has always been
for us and other cities, how do we tackle the existing building stock? how do we bring down the energy use and the omissions that are coming down from those buildings so as people say, what gets measured gets managed, and the challenge they have in the past as we didn't have a way of enforcing or requiring building owners to take a look at their energy use, and then giving that energy information to us. so in 2011, the city and san francisco became the first city in san francisco and one of the first and the nations to require commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet, actually over 10,000 square feet, we went to very small buildings, to measure their energy consumption, and then report it to the department of the environments. this became important for two reasons. number 1, you gave a signal to the building owner whether energy use was other buildings, equally as important, he gave the department of environment
that information, we could focus our limited resources and energy efficiency on buildings that really needed it. this was a very forward looking idea back in 2011, and we are focusing just on commercial buildings at that point in time. so how does it matter it turns out, this is a graph that is rough in terms of the nuance of it, but what's important here is the trends, what you can see looking at the blue line is employment in san francisco, and the ratline is the energy use, at a buildings effect very closely and benchmarking. the trend is exactly how you want it. as employment goes up, the energy of buildings is going down. this is attributed to many factors, that we would have no idea that this was the case. we did not have the energy benchmarking ordinance in place. so what starts in san francisco
shouldn't stay in san francisco, and it certainly didn't, so now this model is going throughout the country. you are seeing cities across the country take this on. the reason california is solid is because the entire state of california decided if it's good for san francisco, we should be doing this beyond our borders. and so in 2015, the state of california passed a law, it benchmarking law. it is some very important things from our perspective. the first one was in 2017, it required utilities to actually give us this information. before this law was put in place , between 2011 and 2017, it was an incredible pain for the department of the environment to get this information from building owners because we had to go tenant by tenant and ask for permission. now that pg and e. is required to give whole building data to us, we can give -- get this information so much more easily and it is more reliable.
in 2017, state law required utilities share the information. in 2018, they rolled out to the commercial sector, 50,000 square feet or greater, and this year they're rolling out to the residential sector, 50,000 square feet or greater. that is about 40 unit buildings for san francisco. so now we have a disconnect between our ordinance i was only for commercial, and a statewide ordinance that is for commercial and residential. and the challenge of that has to do with confusion and reporting. if we don't update our ordinance the way it will work right now, is that commercial buildings will report to the department of the environment and we will report to the state, residential buildings have to report to the state, and that's just -- there's so many bad policy reasons for that so that is why we are coming today to amend ordinance. so what will happen is that we will take this current situation , which is commercial coming to us, residential coming to the state, and we will amend
the ordinance so that the residential look him to the department of the environment as well and we have authority to hand it off. the benefit to the sector are multiple. number 1, they've got us. we have been doing advanced notification to building owners to help them streamline the process. we have free technical assistance. we are already working with them on the apartment association and the chamber to let people know that this is coming down the pipe so that starting july 1st , we will get this data out rather than june 1st, then having to bring it to the state, and then we will take that information, inform our own work , and also give the state its information as well. in summary, what we need, this being april 1st, we know climate change is no joke. we know that the city has a real opportunity to lead by example. we also know our existing building stock is toughest.
it is important alignment to do today to pass this, and then it gives us an opportunity with that data to figure out what is next. so thank you. >> thank you. let me make sure that i understand what the scope of owners who need to report is. so i think what you intend is that residential buildings of 50,000 square feet or greater report. >> correct. >> and nonresidential buildings of 10,000 square feet or more report. >> correct. >> okay. so i think where we are having the problem is in the beginning of the ordinance under definitions, section 2001, building, b. b., means a facility composed of any occupancy types and it sets them forth a be, m., which is
industrial, are one, are two, are three, are four, which i residential, and then later on you define on page 5 in a nonresidential building with 10,000 square feet or more, at a residential building a 50,000 square feet or more, but then in section 203, subsection a, you say the owner of every building in the city shall annually file, and i don't thank you mean building, i thank you mean nonresidential as defined and residential as defined because the term building would encompass every single structure under 10,000 and under 50,000, so i thank you want to change building in section 2003, on
line seven to nine, two nonresidential, residential, and noncapital. i think that's what you intend to. >> you've got it. >> the way it's written, we don't want every building to have that requirement. i could see where we thought where we were clear, and a can see where we weren't. >> deputy city attorney, do you agree? >> i agree with what you said. i also have the experience of finding what we think are errors on the floor, amending, and getting to the full board and realizing that it is actually more complicated. what i would recommend to the committee is if you intend to send it out today, send it out today, and we can make the amendment to the definition of section 203 on tuesday. >> happy to have you guys fix it , however you see fit, as long as it actually does what we are all in agreement that we are
attempting to do. is there any public comment on item number 2? don't all rush up. seen none, public comment is closed. supervisor safai? >> i have some questions through the chair. >> go for it. >> first, i just want to go to supervisor peskin's point. on page 4 you define what a building is. and isn't that what they referencing going point -- going forward? so they defined building, so once they defined it, once they rereference at, that is what they're referencing. >> yes, because it is a b., it is a defined term. >> they listed out what they want here. see worse and what they have listed out is not... i think it might be helpful to clarify. >> what they're trying to capture relative to compliance and reporting is the universe of
nonresidential about 10,000 square feet, and residential about 50,000 square feet, but building as defined in the ordinance is every single building, including single-family homes and two unit buildings that are under 50,000 square feet, and pfeffer unit buildings under 50,000 square feet, and i don't think they intend for those two reports. the way it is written,. >> you might just want to clarify. >> okay. >> my other question is, so you separate out to nonresidential buildings on square footage, director raphael, and i see that there's different types of audits for each one. can you talk a little bit about that, one gets a walk-through auditing get one gets a copy hands of audit, and i want to understand why you are differentiating and what the necessity for that is. >> in terms of the audits, you bring up an interesting point here. the requirement for an audit is only -- was existing,
pre-existing, and it has on the commercial. when we added added line, we did not require residential do an audit, and so that audit language that was in there in 2011 is understanding that buildings of different sizes -- because the ordinance goes down to 10,000 square feet, which is a very small commercial building as opposed to the state looking at 50,000 square feet and above, we thought that the kind of audit can get a very expensive if you've got certain levels of audits -- they surgeon levels of audits cost more. we wanted to acknowledge that smaller buildings do not have the same burden of an audit is larger buildings. that will not apply to the residential sector because we not requiring an audit on the residential sector. >> i did not see any audits for the residential. so it is about the size and the scale and the impact that it has >> correct. >> but the information will be similar. that goes to my second question because i did not see it spelled out, but the actual building owner pays for the audit themselves? >> that is correct.
>> does it talk and here -- it says what the qualification of the auditor is. you have a list of qualified energy efficiency auditors? that you will work with and provide to the building owners if they don't have them. >> yes. all of our auditor qualifications and list of auditors are on our website and listed. >> do you ask them as part of the process to ensure -- i see the qualifications, but do you then look and see that the person -- do you ask them who performs their audit? >> yes, through our audit template were recollect all of our information. they list their credentials and i.d. and we verify that online. >> okay. what is the difference between a comprehensive audit, the cost, versus a walk-through audit? >> the cost varies, it also depends on the size of the building. for smaller buildings, or a level one audit, it is usually
and arrange -- it also ranges per company, but it is in the low thousands, and stan 1,000 to about 5,000, and a more comprehensive audit, level two can be more than that. >> i will say that when this first past, the building that my personal office in north beach is in, the landlord went through an audit and was proudly reported to me a couple years later that he is saving a lot of money every year because it was a great investment, and he was actually quite pleased. >> that is a great story. >> because of the audit? >> yes. a building that was built by his grandfather, it is ground floor commercial and office on the second story. >> so that -- >> he ended up changing the way the building is heated and he
has saved money every year since >> it every year he keeps saving >> right. >> how often is the audit required? >> every five years. >> so where is that spelled out? >> do you want to find the page? he is looking for the page. >> okay. , that is five years, and that was the last point. good point, supervisor peskin. once the audit is performed, you make the adjustments, and you have ongoing savings. i guess while you are looking that up, can we ask them when they are doing the audit, can we ask them to report or disclose the type of energy? i mean we have the information now for who is using clean power s.f., who is not, was opting out , who is opting in, can capture that information too when the audits are performed? that will also inform us on the type of energy that is being used for the building, not just the performance of the building but the source of the energy.
>> we are not asking at this point. >> can be immense that into the legislation, potentially, since we are gathering information in audit form. >> i don't know if there is a law around that but i think it is an interesting idea. >> presumably, the public utilities commission has that data. >> correct. >> it would be an interesting thing for you all to know, but the data might actually be accessible between department -- departments subject to the confidentiality provisions that are set forth. so my point is, if you are having this and you're are collecting this data, either the auditor or you all should be able to determine so we can determine who's not just being efficient, but who is also being conscious of the source of energy in terms of the environment. >> yeah,. i think to supervisor peskin's point, i know that data does exist because clean power s.f.
does know who is their customer and two is not and the size of the buildings that those accounts are, so it is a question of how do we weave that together and for what ends. is it because we want to require something different, or to give them accolades? >> i think we are doing -- i guess part of what i understand this amendment to be is you want people to disclose their energy performance. >> correct. >> but as part of the energy performance, you want them to be more efficient. >> yes. to use less energy. >> so then the next step would be not only just being less energy, but what type of energy are they using, because that then becomes, i guess i go back to the hall that a lot of the buildings put platinum and energy efficient, and as a -- all this other stuff, but it is all still coal-based and all still environmentally -- >> the department of the
environment and p.u.c. have been in a lot of conversations in the last three or four weeks about how to step up super green enrolment, and how we can, as a department of the environment with our great communications team help them get the word out for increasing that enrolment, and these data sets will help us targets the recipients of that information as well, and they also, as i said, help us target where we are doing our energy efficiency work, especially in the residential sector where that savings can go right to the tenants in terms of decreased utility cost. this kind of information will be super helpful for us in our energy efficiency work. >> it seems like something we could add into as part of the data collection that would be simple. >> the word simple, i don't know , but we can look into it. >> i would ask the city attorney if we can potentially make that amendment, if it is a friendly amendment, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> great. >> it will be part of my
amendment to the legislation. i don't have any other questions , but great work. >> anything else? >> if you and the p.u.c. can get with council and see if we can craft anything in the next 24 hours, if it turns out to be too complicated, or should be another vehicle, we will look at that tomorrow, next week -- not tomorrow, next week. >> thank you so much. >> we asked for public comment and there was no public comment so we will send this to the full board with a recommendation to be amended next week. without objection. magic clerk, next item, please. >> item three is an ordinance amending the landmark designation for landmark number 2049 '06 broadway under article ten of the planning code. confirmed exterior of -- exterior features should be preserved or replaced and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. colleagues, by way of background
, 906 broadway is our lady of guadalupe church in the hearts of the northeast corner of san francisco, district three , which i represent. it has an interesting -- many interesting stories. one of which is that it was landmarked in 1993 before, and a former mayor brown is lessening, before then speaker brown passed assembly bill i think it was 133 at the behest of the archdiocese of the state of california, which prevented local governments from lands marking religious structures, and interestingly enough, the city and county of san francisco, on the theory that it was a violation of church and state, took that case all the way up to
the united states supreme court and ultimately did not prevail, but this was landmarked prior to the passage of that preentry piece of legislation. it hails from a date in time when there was a large latino community in the northeast corner of san francisco. for those that do not know, there is a plaque on columbus avenue regaling the history of little chile, believe it or not, and every year on december 12th , for many, many years, the latino community from the mission would come on the day of our lady of guadalupe a and marriott she bands would wind through chinatown and north beach. it was a sight to behold. in 1996, i believe it was, or
maybe it was 94, i think it was 94, the san francisco archdiocese closed number of parish churches, including our lady of guadalupe a, and for a number of years, would reopen it one day a year on december 12th , to allow that community to come and celebrate. subsequently, it was sold off, interestingly enough, when i was reelected in 2015, for a brief moment, it was the potential site for a navigation centre, but subsequently was sold to the current owners, who have agreed to lands marking. the case reported believe was prepared by paige turnbull, and they received a certificate of appropriateness for some internal changes, and i want to thank the project sponsor for accommodating the communicating
staircase in an appropriate location, and think staff for bringing the interior lands marking of some character defining features pursuant to article ten of the planning code , and with that, miss smith, the floor is yours. >> thank you. >> i will say one thing, i was first elected in a runoff on december 12th, of the year 2,000, and i started that morning in a rainy morning on a runoff election in the senate kristi of that church. i am a jewish guy, but when this little shaft of light lit up that incredible stained-glass window and some old latina woman said to me, you are going to win , i knew i was going to have a good day that day, so i have very special association with that church.
>> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from the planning department staff and i'm here today to present the proposed amendment to the landmark designation for 906 broadway, historically known as our lady of guadalupe eight located in north beach. 906 broadway was designated as landmark number 204 in 1993. at the time a designation, only the exterior features of the building were designated. following the sale of the property with the archdiocese in 2016, they added to their landmark designation work program. on december 19th, 2019, the historic preservation commission recommended the land might designation be amended to include the building's interior, including the sanctuary, murals, another significant interior features. to briefly summarize, the property a significant force association with the development of the san francisco latino and
spanish-speaking communities from the late 19th to the mid- 20th century, as well as the geographical and spiritual heart of the latino and spanish-speaking enclave that existed in north beach until the 1950s. it is also architecturally significant of the work of master architects at chez and locke west and an exceptional example of an early 20th century mission revival church with a highly ornate interior displaying renaissance and baroque ornamentation, including its interior murals painted by a master artist. the department has received two letters in support of the designation amendment and has shared a draft of the designation report with the property owner who has testified in support of the designation amendment and is also present today. there is no known public or neighborhood opposition to the amendment. the department believes the building's interior meets the established eligibility
requirements and that amendment for the landmark designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you miss smith and thank you to staff of the planning department and historic preservation commission. is there any public comment on this item? seeing then, public comment is closed. madame clerk, i would like to add my name is a sponsor, and if there is no objection, we will forward this to the full board with recommendation. that will be the order, and we are adjourned.